Sinn Fein leadership

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

Do you not think councillors should turn up to meetings,If there meant too??

Any other job you'd be sacked for it?

Why should politoans always get an easy pass?



Quite how you've managed to convince yourself this amounts to bullying is?

Not to mention the fact that blanch missed the fact that they ignored an appointment made by head office.
A similar offence to ignoring the party whip. (Lucinda and a galaxy of others more senior than these have departed every party in the state for that)


Something that happens in every cumann and branch in the country has been elevated to something sinister by the Indo for the titillation of the usual.

I would call it decisive 'leadership' blanch.

Red_Wake

tomwaterford wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Not turning up to a few meetings is an excuse to expel three councillors? Seriously?

The topic of this thread is the leadership of Sinn Fein. If they are losing councillors right, left and centre, it raises a lot of issues about the leadership. As does a pervasive bullying culture.

Do you not think councillors should turn up to meetings,If there meant too??

Any other job you'd be sacked for it?

Why should politoans always get an easy pass?



Quite how you've managed to convince yourself this amounts to bullying is?

Is this coming from the same party that has boycotted Westminster for as long as they've been a political party?

tomwaterford

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is this coming from the same party that has boycotted Westminster for as long as they've been a political party?

Yes?

You have problems with principles?

Nowhere has thsee lads said they not gone to meetings outta principles

McMurphy

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is this coming from the same party that has boycotted Westminster for as long as they've been a political party?

One would wonder if these councillors canvsssed on the understanding that they would not be attending meetings if elected?

FrancieBrady

Rick Shaw wrote: »

One would wonder if these councillors canvsssed on the understanding that they would not be attending meetings if elected?

These councillors refused to accept an appointment made by party HQ.

Simple as that.

What happened when Lucinda refused to accept party policy? She jumped before she was pushed and after losing the party whip.

Ordinary stuff in political parties really, but keep construing it as something sinister, Halloween is coming.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

These councillors refused to accept an appointment made by party HQ.

Simple as that.

What happened when Lucinda refused to accept party policy? She jumped before she was pushed and after losing the party whip.

Ordinary stuff in political parties really, but keep construing it as something sinister, Halloween is coming.

I think you misunderstand my sentiments F.B.

I know full well that the councillors refused to attend meetings organised by Sinn Fein.

My post was in response to another poster who is seemingly unaware on an actual abstention policy.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

These councillors refused to accept an appointment made by party HQ.

Simple as that.

What happened when Lucinda refused to accept party policy? She jumped before she was pushed and after losing the party whip.

Ordinary stuff in political parties really, but keep construing it as something sinister, Halloween is coming.

There is a very big difference between not going to some random meeting arranged by ones party and not supporting ones partly in an important Dáil vote!

What was the party meeting about since it was apparently so important?

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

There is a very big difference between not going to some random meeting arranged by ones party and not supporting ones partly in an important Dáil vote!

What was the party meeting about since it was apparently so important?

There isn't a huge difference, they all refused to tow the party line. Like many many politicians, high and low, over the years.

The only extraordinary thing here is the usual suspects clambering onto the bandwagon.

Seth Brundle

So what was so important about this meeting then?

tomwaterford

kbannon wrote: »

So what was so important about this meeting then?

What was so important they couldn't attend?



Do you just not turn up to meetings at your job?

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

So what was so important about this meeting then?

I have no idea but 'council team' meeting might be a clue?

And it was meetings over the course of 18 months that they refused to attend because of a dispute over an appointment

Seth Brundle

You don't know but you do know it was as important as not voting with your party whip on a crucial Dáil vote?
I've no idea whether she was right or wrong not to attend but dont over-inflate a team meeting!

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

You don't know but you do know it was as important as not voting with your party whip on a crucial Dáil vote?
I've no idea whether she was right or wrong not to attend but dont over-inflate a team meeting!

Meetings over 18 months. That's a year and 6months they were refusing to meet and discuss party matters.

An intolerable situation for any party

Turnipman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

they all refused to tow the party line.

That's TOE the party line, you eejit!

You know - the concept is that one puts one's toe or toes (you probably have at least four on each foot) up against a line in the ground.

Step across that line and you're a gonner!

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Meetings over 18 months. That's a year and 6months they were refusing to meet and discuss party matters.

An intolerable situation for any party

Maybe they were afraid of being bullied at the meeting.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

Maybe they were afraid of being bullied at the meeting.

And you have anything approaching proof of this??



Seems to me,they were shrinking responsibilty and trying to avoid questioning??


They have no bother standing for council,but won't attend meetings?

What other job can you not bother yourself turning up to meetings and this be ignored for 18 months....seems a shambles of a setup it went on so long

FrancieBrady

Party whips are just a polite name for a bully anyhow.

Happens in every party everywhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/13/whips-secrets-black-books-threats-child-abuse-inquiry-politics

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

Seems to me,they were shrinking responsibilty and trying to avoid questioning??


They have no bother standing for council,but won't attend meetings?

What other job can you not bother yourself turning up to meetings and this be ignored for 18 months....seems a shambles of a setup it went on so long

And you have anything approaching proof of this??

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

And you have anything approaching proof of this??

The link provided by your good self earlier said they didn't attend meetings for 18 months ?

Red_Wake

tomwaterford wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Maybe they were afraid of being bullied at the meeting.

And you have anything approaching proof of this??



Seems to me,they were shrinking responsibilty and trying to avoid questioning??


They have no bother standing for council,but won't attend meetings?

What other job can you not bother yourself turning up to meetings and this be ignored for 18 months....seems a shambles of a setup it went on so long

Member of Her Majesty's Parliament?

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

Member of Her Majesty's Parliament?

Not that there is any similarity here at all but is the 'job' not representing the wishes of those who elected you? They (the electorate) know what the candidate will and will not do before they cast their vote.
Which cannot be said of all candidates (The dishonourable Mr Rabitte being a memorable case in point)

Jawgap

Red_Wake wrote: »

Member of Her Majesty's Parliament?

I'd say the Tories are huge fans of the SF leadership persisting in their failed policy of abstentionism......if it wasn't for them they'd have been out on their ear instead of in power, negotiating Brexit and the potential introduction of some form of border controls.

Cheap at the price of a few MPs salaries and expenses.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd say the Tories are huge fans of the SF leadership persisting in their failed policy of abstentionism......if it wasn't for them they'd have been out on their ear instead of in power, negotiating Brexit and the potential introduction of some form of border controls.

Cheap at the price of a few MPs salaries and expenses.

There is a fair old whiff of desperation there Jawgap in fairness.
SF are to blame for Brexit, the Tories, climate change, North Korea etc etc etc.

I suppose if you have grown up in a country where political principles are for sale to the highest bidder/vote count, it isn't suprising.

I'm no fan of abstentionism but they have stuck to their principles on it through thick and thin.
I think the long game on Brexit might be the smart move though.

McMurphy

Red_Wake wrote: »

Member of Her Majesty's Parliament?

The majority of nationalists in the north vote for a party who have a policy on abstention. Ie, they knowingly vote for a candidate who have stated during their campaign that, if elected, would not be taking his or her seat in the British parliament.

How can that be in any way compared with councillors who decide not to attend party meetings, after securing their seats?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a fair old whiff of desperation there Jawgap in fairness.
SF are to blame for Brexit, the Tories, climate change, North Korea etc etc etc.

I suppose if you have grown up in a country where political principles are for sale to the highest bidder/vote count, it isn't suprising.

I'm no fan of abstentionism but they have stuck to their principles on it through thick and thin.
I think the long game on Brexit might be the smart move though.

Eh, no one is saying SF are to blame for Brexit.

The point is a simple one......following on from the most GE in the UK, the SF leadership persisted in the outmoded policy of abstention......that policy has permitted May and the Tories to remain in power and will doubtless allow them to drive through their bastardised, disaster-ridden form of Brexit.

I'm guessing those who voted SF knew they were voting for abstentionism, but given the perpetuation of Tory rule I wonder if their vote was a vote for absolute abstentionism in all cases, even when it allows the Tories to stay in power......or would they have preferred SF to contribute to removing the Tories, and getting some control over the Brexit process?

Indeed, such questions are academic, but the point remains abstentionism has, on this occasion, served the Tories better than it served the electorate.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Eh, no one is saying SF are to blame for Brexit.

The point is a simple one......following on from the most GE in the UK, the SF leadership persisted in the outmoded policy of abstention......that policy has permitted May and the Tories to remain in power and will doubtless allow them to drive through their bastardised, disaster-ridden form of Brexit.

I'm guessing those who voted SF knew they were voting for abstentionism, but given the perpetuation of Tory rule I wonder if their vote was a vote for absolute abstentionism in all cases, even when it allows the Tories to stay in power......or would they have preferred SF to contribute to removing the Tories, and getting some control over the Brexit process?

Indeed, such questions are academic, but the point remains abstentionism has, on this occasion, served the Tories better than it served the electorate.

The DUP are the reason the Tories are in power.
We will see what the electorate of the north of Ireland think of that after a few years of Brexit.

Only the willfully blind will not see that SF have delivered for their electorate, the GFA etc etc etc.

The SDLP have lost heavily to SF in polls and they take their seats. (comfy ones I am sure)

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP are the reason the Tories are in power.
We will see what the electorate of the north of Ireland think of that after a few years of Brexit.

Only the willfully blind will not see that SF have delivered for their electorate, the GFA etc etc etc.

The SDLP have lost heavily to SF in polls and they take their seats. (comfy ones I am sure)

Yes, the DUP are actively keeping the Tories in power......the point being that DUP support would've been moot if the SF leadership suspended abstentionism and worked with the other parties (and smoked out a couple of Tory rebels) and voted down any Tory candidate for PM.

As it is, the leadership's continued adherence to abstentionism makes the DUP's support a practical proposition and gives the Tories a much larger (though still slim) cushion than they otherwise would have......therefore abstentionism isn't serving the electorate, its serving the Tories and the DUP! Talk about a classic example of the law of unintended consequences!

It cost the Tories about £100m per year for each DUP vote in the Commons......it cost them nothing to neutralise the 7 SF opposition votes!

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, the DUP are actively keeping the Tories in power......the point being that DUP support would've been moot if the SF leadership suspended abstentionism and worked with the other parties (and smoked out a couple of Tory rebels) and voted down any Tory candidate for PM.

As it is, the leadership's continued adherence to abstentionism makes the DUP's support a practical proposition and gives the Tories a much larger (though still slim) cushion than they otherwise would have......therefore abstentionism isn't serving the electorate, its serving the Tories and the DUP! Talk about a classic example of the law of unintended consequences!

It cost the Tories about £100m per year for each DUP vote in the Commons......it cost them nothing to neutralise the 7 SF opposition votes!

You could make that claim about any tight parliament since the year dot.

Sure if Ireland hadn't gone for independence then Labour might be the kingpins. :rolleyes:

Abstentionism is a long time in operation. And it won't change for a few gains over the lifetime of one parliament.

As I said, if you come from a culture where politicians sell their principles so easily, it is easy to understand your point of view.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You could make that claim about any tight parliament since the year dot.

Sure if Ireland hadn't gone for independence then Labour might be the kingpins. :rolleyes:

Abstentionism is a long time in operation. And it won't change for a few gains over the lifetime of one parliament.

As I said, if you come from a culture where politicians sell their principles so easily, it is easy to understand your point of view.

You could, but I'm making it about this one......

Brexit, to me anyway, seems not to be in the interest of NI or the people who live there.....the SF leadership were presented with a gilt-edged opportunity to turf out the prime movers of it and, possibly, help stall the process......that opportunity required the leadership to abandon abstentionism.......they refused to do so......leaving the door open for the Tories to stay in power and the DUP to score a bonanza......

.....yes people voted for them knowing they were abstentionist, but they didn't vote for them to tacitly facilitate Brexit by allowing the Tories to remain in power (I'm guessing)......so the SF leadership get to style themselves as ideologically consistent while NI falls out of the EU.....when all the while the means to prevent disaster sits well within the grasp of SF's leadership.

And the sad tragedy is that the electorate will vote them back in for doing such a "good job".......while all the while believing their predicament is someone else's fault.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

You could, but I'm making it about this one......

Brexit, to me anyway, seems not to be in the interest of NI or the people who live there.....the SF leadership were presented with a gilt-edged opportunity to turf out the prime movers of it and, possibly, help stall the process......that opportunity required the leadership to abandon abstentionism.......they refused to do so......leaving the door open for the Tories to stay in power and the DUP to score a bonanza......

.....yes people voted for them knowing they were abstentionist, but they didn't vote for them to tacitly facilitate Brexit by allowing the Tories to remain in power (I'm guessing)......so the SF leadership get to style themselves as ideologically consistent while NI falls out of the EU.....when all the while the means to prevent disaster sits well within the grasp of SF's leadership.

And the sad tragedy is that the electorate will vote them back in for doing such a "good job".......while all the while believing their predicament is someone else's fault.

Let's hear you say it, are you saying, Brexit and it's effects are ultimately SF's fault?